canon rumors FORUM

I've only been there early season when the high passes were still closed, but it's a beautiful place. If you want some wildlife shots and won't be going through Yellowstone, you might check out the National Bison Reserve which is a couple hours south of Glacier. It's got an auto-route with excellent photo opportunities for Bison and Pronghorn, and the valley it's in has some good opportunities for waterfowl photos.

I'd suggest the 2x converter if you're only bringing one- unless you get lucky you'll want as much reach as you can get, and from what I've heard the 70-200 /2.8mkii does quite well with the 2x.

I'd also put a plug in for the Sigma 8-16 if there's any chance you'd consider an aps-c lens and don't use ND filters a lot.

Definitely the 10-22. Fantastic lens on crop. I have one for my 7D and the 16-35 L II for the 5DII. Really, there isn't much of a difference. Resale value for used lenses is great, you will have no problem selling that lens if you decide to go full frame one day. Enjoy your trip!

Glacier is my favorite NP, and we have been to most of them. Awesome scenery and wildlife everywhere. There are many, many great trails and places there. The Many Glacier area is our favorite and we enjoy staying at the lodge there and exploring the many trails in the surrounding area.

+1 on the 10-22mm lens. I rented a 10-22 for our last trip to Glacier in 2011 to go with a 18-135mm and 55-250mm on a T2i camera and got some spectacular shots. The 18mm wasn't wide enough for many of the shots I wanted, so I ended up using the 10-22 for most landscape shots and the 55-250 for wildlife. I found the 250mm on a crop to be enough reach for most wildlife shots, but occasionally wished I had a longer lens or extender. I would recommend renting a 2x just in case.

I will be going to Glacier National Park In late July. I am planning on taking quite a few pictures, as I love traveling to the National Parks.

Then you'll love Glacier. It's the best national park I've ever laid eyes upon for a variety of reasons.

Quote

First, should I look into purchasing (or perhaps renting) a specific wide angle? I hope I can upgrade to FF sometime, but this likely won't be until about 5 years down the road. The two options I was considering here are the 16-35 II and the 10-22.

There are a couple things you have to consider. First, 18-135 is a tremendous range for Glacier. But I'm not such a fan of that lens. Too much compromise.

Glacier is all about the water. Lakes, rivers, and waterfalls are everywhere. You're going to be doing compressed landscapes, making 18-135 a fantastic range. The ultra wide angle is what you'll need when you are in the forests, or hiking in narrow canyons. It won't get used otherwise, and if it does, the results will merely "shrink the mountains" (don't be that guy, lol).

Glacier is blessed not only with incredible wildlife watching, but a wide variety of scenery. It's also divided by two distinct sides: the wetter, greener west side with the big rivers, and the windy, jagged east side with its more impressive peaks. Both sides are brimming with stunning lakes. The wind on the east side will punish you. A tripod is a must.

Your 70-200 will work for lots of wildlife (especially the little guys in the campgrounds), but I would consider maneuvering away from the 18-135 IS. Here's what I would propose you go to Glacier with:

Scenario A: 70-200, Sigma 10-20, Canon 50 1.8 II.

The Sigma 10-20 is $400 new, and just as good as the Canon, and better in build quality and warranty. The image quality form the 50 1.8 and Sigma is better than the 18-135.

Scenario B:

70-200, Canon 15-85 IS.

This will get you decently wide and up the quality from your 18-135.

Scenario C:

70-200, 18-135 IS, Sigma 10-20.

Quote

Secondly, should I add an extender for wildlife?

Depends on how focused on wildlife you are. If you're up around 50%, yes.

Quote

Lastly, are there any locations that are a must? And is there any other specific gear that I "must" bring to have a successful trip?

Put a CP on your ultra wide and your standard lens. With so much water, you don't want glare.

Every location in Glacier is spectacular, which is why it towers above most other parks that have "best spots". That said, you'll have a better chance of spotting bears and other wildlife along Going to the Sun Road, and the eastern half of the park due to the more open nature. The west side has taller, denser forest and more green. The woods around Apgar remind me of the Northwoods in a way (the spots that aren't hacked down, anyway).

I spent several weeks camping in Glacier in the fall of 2012 (which felt more like winter). I left the day they closed Two Medicine and Many Glacier for winter. I remember being cold and cooking in snow, lol. But man I saw many great things. I'll be going back in 2013, as always.

I went to my local camera store today and tried out the 10-22. 10mm is quite a difference from 18! I then tried to see if they could come anywhere near B&H prices (so I could support a local place), but they wouldn't even budge a few dollars and they certainly wouldn't match the current price.

Needless to say, I went home and purchased the 10-22 for my trip. Thank you all for your wonderful advice, and for reassuring me with what I was leaning towards in the first place.

Sorry I didn't acknowledge everyone earlier.

rlaverty - thanks! I'm really looking forward to the trip.

Fat Daddy - I am definitely going to make sure the Going to the Sun Road is included on our trip. I've heard quite a bit about it.

Texphoto - It's a great idea and as much as I'd like to, I think renting another body would be a little too expensive for my taste for just one location on our trip.

Robby - I do plan on renting the extender, so thanks. I'll have to look at Polebridge.

RLP - thanks for your input on the lensStandard - unfortunately, I am not a huge fan of the manual focus only sticker on that lens (at least not at this point... so Zeiss lenses are out too I guess...

Scrappy - I liked the 1.4 extender, as I also tried both of the extenders at the photo store. I really didn't notice much AF slow down or accuracy issues at all with either extender, so that was super nice!

Neuro - thanks. As a side note I appreciate your more technical posts, as I am an engineering student myself (I believe I remember you are some type of engineer, but I digress)

Steve - yeah that's kind of what I was thinking and seeing via flickr.

Distant - I completely agree! I've missed several pretty stellar shots because I sometimes just have to put my camera down and soak it all in.

A neutral density filter is what I forgot the last time I went to a national park... Yellowstone, in my case. NDs are a must for taking proper exposures of all the awesome waterfalls and rapids, if you want that soft, velvety water look. At glacier, you'll use it a LOT.

A neutral density filter is what I forgot the last time I went to a national park... Yellowstone, in my case. NDs are a must for taking proper exposures of all the awesome waterfalls and rapids, if you want that soft, velvety water look. At glacier, you'll use it a LOT.

Good point, but I kind of stopped using mine. A CP and careful settings seems to do just fine most of the time. Definitely not a bad idea to have one, though. Glacier is, IMHO, a water park at its heart.